Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:I just don't get it. It is like a committee of members standing outside a venue preventing me from holding a party meeting. Can anyone come on here and justify this obstruction? It requires an explanation.
I'd have thought the analogy would be the editorial committee refusing to print a submitted article from a member.
https://twitter.com/PeterRNeumann/status/691202963424034816Watch the video, it demonstrates the economic warfare being waged by IS, they are forbidding people to do any work (as the video says, if people would rather not work than join IS, that is resistance). But they are buying the loyalty of children. It's horrific. This demonstrates that the most effective weapon we have against IS is actually taking in the refugees, the more the population is drained, the weaker their support is…
Crick continues to chip away:http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/ramsgate-sleazebuster-refers-tory-14000-hotel-bills-kent-police/5214An member of the public has complained to the police.They will have to investigate, and this could go off like a bomb: keep an eye on it, since, as we run up to the election, a re-run at thanet, and a Tory sleeze headline could do some real damage…
Oh, and for the record, Bielefeld doesn't exist… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy
We weren't the only ones to notice this:http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/KempLancasterPowerCuts201512V3.pdf
Obviously, first and foremost Marx was a communist: his ideas about the proletariat being capable of bringing communism about was the starting point.As we can see:https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1845/02/15.htm
Engels wrote:People ask how this theory is to be translated into reality, what measures we propose to prepare its introduction. There are various ways to this end; the English will probably begin by setting up a number of colonies and leaving it to every individual whether to join or not; the French, on the other hand, will be likely to prepare and implement communism on a national basis. Not much can be said about how the Germans will start since the social movement in Germany is new. Meanwhile, among the many possible ways of preparing, I would like to mention only one which has recently been much discussed — the carrying through of three measures which are bound to result in practical communism.Marx and Engels were not dogmatic about the method of attaining communism (but they knew full well it would be the end of buying and selling).However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=INDEXFTSE:UKX(choose the All option) for the FTSE over the last 30 years. If I'm looking at it right, the peak this time is on the trend line, which means can only go down below trend fairly quickly if we slump.
robbo203 wrote:Yes I agree 100% . I just dont see the point in labour time accounting in a socialist society (not to be confused with labour vouchers but I dont see much point in them either). Quite apart from the bureauccacy involved in monitoring labour time there is the intrinsic problem of how you weight differnet kinds of labour. For example skiiled versus unskilledAs I tried to raise on another thread, there is the algorithm here:http://www.spliddit.org/apps/tasksThat doesn't start from skilled/unskilled, but the most frequent i.e. most needed) task, and asks participants to rank in terms of that task. Over umpety thousan iterations of peopel scoring, we'd have a clear idea of the relations between various tasks, and people's willingess to perform them.
Paul Mason can see the cycle, and is deeply pessimistic:http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/governments-tackle-unsustainable-global-economic-trends/4336
Mason wrote:But don’t let the apparent symmetry of the peaks fool you. This pattern of boom and bust is progressively destructive. The first peak destroyed the company pension system, whereby skilled workers and the salariat could expect to retire on around 2/3 their final salary. The second peak destroyed the global banking system, hiked government debts to levels usually seen at the end of world wars and left the entire global economy on life support. The third downturn is happening because the effectiveness of that life support is running out.Oooh, Crick has the bit in his teeth:http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/electoral-commission-act-tory-thanet-expenses
Crick wrote:What stood out for me was a series of four bills claimed by the Conservatives for the Royal Harbour Hotel in Ramsgate last spring, in the constituency Nigel Farage was hoping to win, and which saw a fiercely-contested campaign. The hotel bills total £14,213.18 for the five weeks of the short campaign, from 30 March to 7 May.Yet the legal expense limit in Thanet South for that period was £15,016.38, and according to the Conservatives’ local expense return for the constituency, submitted last June, they spent £14,837 on the campaign, just £179 short of the legal limit. If one included the hefty bills from the national figures for the Royal Ramsgate Hotel – and I suspect many experts would argue they should be – then the total to elect Craig Mackinlay as the MP comes to £29,050, almost twice the legal spending limit in that seat.As he says, election eturns a to some extent fictional, and would not withstand foprensic examination (hence, he notes the gentleman's agreement not to challenge, since I suspect everyone would be found to be in breech). However, given how outgunned UKIP were, tehre may be quiet rammifications. This will have been noted.
Some societies would have used more labour time than necessary (a point Morris makes), the builders of the likes of Stonehenge may have eschewed production methods that used less labour in favour of using more (to demonstrate the nyumber of followers in their band). Arguably, socialism will be ends driven, and will not necessarilly try to spare labour. Whilst indicative labour planning might be useful we shouldn't be dictated to by it.
jondwhite wrote:Isn't Labours main hope to win the election? Isn't political influence reflected by funding not the other way around?It's not a one way street, sometimes the party that looks like it will win will attract the funds (as capitalists like to back winners)…
Quote:“Last time everyone talked about how it was the first social media election,” he said. “This time around it actually was and no one noticed.”As a result, the Conservatives’ online efforts were barely noticed by journalists because they targeted disengaged voters in marginal constituencies outside London with Facebook advertising.robbo203 wrote:Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT? Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society. There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at allNo, surplus product is what peasants make over subsistance. Surplus profit is where a capitalist firm produces at a rate below the average socially necessary labour time (though technical innovation, say) but can still sell 'above value' by selling at the prevailing market rate.
Sepehr wrote:Marx wrote:"In this a commodity produced by a capitalist does not differ in any way from that produced by an independent labourer or by communities of working-people or by slaves."So is that how you read Marx? In that case, e.g. all that Marx has said in his "On the Jewish Question" only pertains to Jews and cannot be used in any other context! He clearly mentions commodities are produced under all modes of production. If there are commodities, there is exchange. If there is exchange, there is value. If there is value, there is surplusvalue, i.e. produced value excess to the socially necessary labour time. And socially necessary labour time exists in all societies, whether capitalist or non-capitalist.
Sorry, I dabble in English. So, Marx says "A commodity produced" at the start of the sentence, he is assuming it is a commodity, he is not saying all modes of production and types of society produce commodities. he then notes (and here is where the context is relevent) that a commodity produced without a private capitalist is still a commodity (which is precisely what we usually argue). So, for example, if slaves are working on a plantation to create comodities, their labour time still creates value. But if the slaves are used to keep the plantation self sufficient, it is not a commodity.Also, I note you are still conflating surplus value with surplus profit, as clearly explained, average socially necessary labour time is the definition of the total value of a commodity: surplus value is the difference between the value of labour power and the average socially necessary labour time that goes into a commodity. What you are arguing is closer to Proudhon than it is to Marx.
